B-25 Hard to Fly?

[MIflyer]

Today on our local radio station they had a interesting talk on Gen David Jones, Doolittle Raider, Great Escape Survivor and all round terrific person. They said that the B-25 was very hard to fly due to its tricycle landing gear but he still excelled at it.

The USAAF started replacing the twin-engined trainers with B-25's during WWII because they were actually easier and safer to fly and were good for other tasks as well. They USAAF and USAF continued using B-25's as multi-engined trainers and all round hack transports until the late 1950's. I have seen pictures of B-25's still being used by ANG units as late as 1965.

A friend of mine, the maintenance chief for the 9th PRS, and not trained as a pilot at the time, flew the 9th's B-25 for most of a flight, the actual pilots finally putting down their cards and taking over the controls when they were on final approach. The B-25 was just about the most popular postwar WWII warbird, being used for transports. mosquito spraying, and just plain fun. A very experienced RAF pilot flew for the BoB movie and got to handle the photo B-25, saying he thought it was so easy to fly that you could hand the controls to a Piper Tri-Pacer pilot, give him the numbers to use and he could handle it with no problem.

I think the B-25 is in the running for the easiest WWII combat aircraft to fly. I guess the Piper L-4 probably is easier, but since it is a taildragger, maybe not. I can't think of any other combat airplane that would be easier to fly.

What say y'all? I'll phone in some comments to the station tomorrow.

 

[GregP]

It's NOT hard to fly, it's EASY to fly.

However, if you are light with nobody in back and someone in the nose, the CG is quite forward and you run out of elevator when landing to hold the nose up and flare for landing. The solution is to add power, which very easily brings the nose up. Other than at forward CG when very light, it has no bad characteristics aside from being generally a bit bomber-like on the controls. If you are light, you can get the nosewheel off the ground with a very short ground roll, on the order of 2 airplane lengths. So, it ain't no P-40, but it flies well otherwise, assuming you have trained in how to land it when the CG is way forward.

Lest anyone think that is an unusual characteristic, it isn't. A Cessna 206 does the same thing with only two people in front. So does a Piper Dakota (Cherokee 235 with the double -tapered wing).

The worst thing about a B-25 is the fact that you are sitting right between two R-2600s with short exhaust stacks on them, so it's LOUD. Better have noise-canceling headsets. Other than that, no downside. It flies well and handles well.

About the no downside, I guess paying the fuel bill is another one but, if you have to worry about that, you won't be flying a B-25 anyway.

 

[GrauGeist]

Another type that was easy to fly, that I have heard from guys who flew it, was Douglas' A-20.

It was actually said to be fun to fly.

 

[MIflyer]

During the filming of the BoB movie, at the end of the day the fighters, Spits, Hurricanes, and Spanish 109's, would do some dogfighting. The B-25 photo ship had been lightened and the controls made smoother. And one day a 109 made a pass at the B-25, and the bomber got on his tail and there was nothing the 109 could do to shake him, finally resorting to a half roll and dive.

"The worst thing about a B-25 is the fact that you are sitting right between two R-2600s with short exhaust stacks on them, so it's LOUD."

So I have heard, from multiple people. The pilot who flew the B-25 to the boneyard that had been Gen Doolittle's personal transport said that airplane, while a later model, had been modified with the collector ring exhausts that were on the early models.

 

[Shortround6]

As you noted they B-25s were around for quite some time.

Not that all trainers are easy to fly but the B-25 was used as a trainer and for a number of other duties after the war. A number were converted to executive transports.
B-26 Marauders were gotten rid of in short order by the USAAF after the war. A few were used as executive transports.

Last B-25 left USSAF service in 1959.

Postwar B-25s

in the early 1950s 597 B-25s were rebuilt as either fire control trainers (airborne radar) or flight trainers. A further 979 were sent through IRAN (Inspect and Repair As Needed) with some upgrades like new auto-pilots and new radios.

It is hard to see the Air Force doing that if they were difficult or dangerous to fly?

Part of the difference in perception may have been that a pilot of the Doolittle raid era might have had hundreds of hours on tail draggers (including twins) and the B-25 was the first tricycle gear plane he had flown. From his record on Wiki he had been flying these before his unit was assigned B-25s

Or the retract versions?
No telling if he got any rides in B-18s but I sure wouldn't rule it out. But a B-25 was a "hot ship" compared to modified DC-2

 

[pbehn]

Were they discussing the B-25 as a carrier borne strike aircraft? As I understand it all these WW2 twin engined types (B-25, B-26, Mosquito etc) were seen as tricky to fly by old hands, there was nothing in the plane themselves that was dangerous but things like landing speeds were higher, which some found disconcerting. Just a question of pilot training, or re training.

 

[beercamel2]

The B-25 was EASY to fly... the only thing I did not like was how noisy it was in the cockpit.. I wore Earplugs AND a David-Clark headset and it STILL was loud.. Noise cancelling tech was not available when I flew it, but I am NOT sure how much it would have helped.. ( I love my NC headset in the Boeing 777!)

 

[GrauGeist]

David-Clark headsets are ok, though WiCom headsets seem to be better at cutting the dB down.

 

[MIflyer]

the only thing I did not like was how noisy it was in the cockpit.

You can imagine that when they sighted that flying saucer in 1955, Maj Bill Coleman's crew did not get to discuss it much among themselves. And after they landed he made them sit down separately and write down what they observed.

I think one reason fro the popularity of the B-25 as a hack transport was the available visibility. Compare that cockpit canopy and the nose compartment as well as the rear side windows with what you can see from a C-47, C-54, T-29, or just about any other transport aircraft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

They said that the B-25 was very hard to fly due to its tricycle landing gear but he still excelled at it.

Wouldn't that make it hard to land rather than fly?

 

[tyrodtom]

Landing is a required part of flying. Just as taking off is.
Once you wheels lose contact with the ground, you're flying.
And flying ends when you contact the ground again.
Actually you have to control the aircraft from the moment it starts moving, till it stops.

 

[GrauGeist]

Tricycle landing gear was still a rather new feature on aircraft at the time and new(er) pilots had to transition from conventional gear in their trainers to tricycle.
It wasn't just the B-25, it was also the A-20 and even P-38 that required a different degree of pitch when landing.

It was not uncommon for pilots who were used to flying fixed gear and transitioned into retractable gear types, to forget to lower their gear when landing, too.

 

[Engineman]

Tricycle landing gear was still a rather new feature on aircraft at the time and new(er) pilots had to transition from conventional gear in their trainers to tricycle.
It wasn't just the B-25, it was also the A-20 and even P-38 that required a different degree of pitch when landing.

It was not uncommon for pilots who were used to flying fixed gear and transitioned into retractable gear types, to forget to lower their gear when landing, too.

Yes, and it is not uncommon for R/G experienced pilots to forget lowering it!
There are those that have, and the rest of us just haven't got there yet!

Eng

 

[GrauGeist]

I will admit that I damn-near did it myself on one occasion.

Being used to our Cherokee, I just about set down a Bonanza legs-up. On final, I was occupied by a serious crosswind and at the last moment, I realized my mistake and aborted.

Lesson learned (the easy way)!

 

[Greyman]

For what it's worth British reports from the A&AEE and AFDU are extremely complimentary about the Mitchell's flight characteristics.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Tricycle landing gear was still a rather new feature on aircraft at the time and new(er) pilots had to transition from conventional gear in their trainers to tricycle. It wasn't just the B-25, it was also the A-20 and even P-38 that required a different degree of pitch when landing.

It was a rarer thing for the Brits. Their own B-25-like twin tail, radial powered Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle was also tricycle equipped.